-------------------------------------------------------------------
Letters to Hell - June 2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents
========
- Fanning
- Better Writing Skills
- Dare to Review
- What Was Your Favorite Laugh Out-Loud Moment?
- Painfully Punny
- Eternally Grateful
- Music By John Morris
- Common Sense
- Second-Rate Craftsmanship
- I Didn't Even Try to Keep From Laughing
- Unless You're a Chick #1
- Unless You're a Chick #2
- Fat Rosie O'Donnell
- Talking to the Camera
- At Least It Was Better Than Mary Reilly
Fanning
=======
[ From: Tish ]
>
> Hi. I'd like to e-mail Brian Dehenney directly. Can you help me?
>
[ No ]
Better Writing Skills
=====================
[ From: Bryan]
> I feel you should keep your real job and stop writing reviews
> while you have a chance. Your local community college has
> classes dedicated to better writing skills.
[ Thanks for feeling me ]
Dare To Review
==============
[ From: David ]
> I find it funny that you would dare to review a movie even after
> you walked out of it. I have a review site and I've only done
> such a thing once-- a really obscure and bad film from Canada,
> BUBBLES GALORE.
[ To quote my newest tag line, think of it as "cinematic taste test-
ing" ]
What Was Your Favorite Laugh Out-Loud Moment?
=============================================
[ From: Glenn in Edmonton, AB ]
[ Re: BATTLEFIELD EARTH ]
> Hard to say. What got me was that the Psyclods kept sending sur-
> veillance aircraft over where the humans were supposed to be min-
> ing gold to make sure they were working... and never noticed that
> the aircraft they had was missing?
[ Heh ]
Painfully Punny
===============
[ From: Bonnie in Mebane ]
[ Re: DINOSAUR ]
> > Heck, the movie isn't even boring-enough to induce a nap. It's
> > just there. Large, loud, and, for at least one viewer, utterly
> > under-appealing.
>
> So you were not en-raptor-ed? It was pterodactyl? The plot di-
> plod-ocused? You were ready to leave in a trice-roptops? Did you
> go steg-osarus, or did you take a date?
[ Had ass-teroids afterward, too. ]
Eternally Grateful
===================
[ From: Chris ]
> I am a student at in Warrington, England. I'm currently in my
> first year of Film Studies at Advanced Level. As part of my exam
> coursework I have to produce an in-depth study of Oliver Stone's
> NATURAL BORN KILLERS. After seeing a couple of your reviews on
> the net, I have come to the conclusion that you have written quite
> a bit about film. Could you could send me any reviews, informa-
> tion, or web site addresses that could help me in my study. I
> would be eternally grateful.
[ Two to recommend: http://us.imdb.com and http://www.mrqe.com ]
Music By John Morris
====================
[ From: Flau Blucher in Bilbao ]
> I'm a Spanish fan of Mel Brooks and I'm very interested in the
> soundtrack from YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. Here in Spain is very dif-
> ficult to find. Could you help me? How and where could I find
> it? Thank you very much in advance
[ From: Tim in Australia ]
> I was having a look around your site, and I figured you might know
> if there was a release of all the music from Mel Brook's HISTORY
> OF THE WORLD, PART I. Any clues?
[ The former should be available at any online music store, such as
http://www.cdnow.com. The latter, which includes dialogue, "The
Inquisition," and the "Jews In Space" theme song, has been out-of-
print for years ]
Common Sense
============
[ From: Dawn ]
[ Re: GLADIATOR ]
> > First we see snow falling on cedars, then the green green grass
> > of home, and then a desert. Jeez, how 'bout title cards to
> > help us out?
> >
> How about simple common sense? That wasn't snow falling, dink.
> It was ash from the forest burning.
>
[ From: Dave ]
>
> Hey, at least he *finished* the movie.
>
[ Heh ]
Second Rate Craftsmanship
=========================
[ From: Matt at Columbia University ]
[ Re: GLADIATOR ]
> > A poor sound recording garbles the first half-hour (or more) of
> > dialogue.
> >
> Thanks for this. I thought it might have been the theater I was
> at, but perhaps it's the fault of the mixing/recording. Things
> like that, along with the ham-fisted editing, bothered me more
> than anything else. I couldn't get over the general second-rate
> craftsmanship put into it.
>
[ From: Todd ]
> > I couldn't get over the general second-rate craftsmanship put
> > into it.
> >
> I can't get over the number of armchair directors who have the
> audacity to speak any ill of the editing, cinematography, sound,
> etc. All the technical production values in this movie, as in
> all Ridley Scott films, were first rate. There simply isn't a
> technically bad frame on the platter. Now, say whatever you want
> about story, etc.
[ I will ]
I Didn't Even Try to Keep From Laughing
=======================================
[ From: James in North Carolina ]
[ Re: MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 ]
> > ...the greatest challenge for the MI2 viewer is not to giggle.
> > Don't laugh during the love scene when Cruise says, straight-
> > faced to Thandie, "Damn you're beautiful." Go with the flow
> > with the incredulous cliff-hanging opening, as well as with the
> > MATRIX-style kung-fu flips that you know full well were accom-
> > plished with wires, mattes, or stunt doubles.
> >
> I didn't even try to keep from laughing. Don't think anyone else
> in the theater thought it was funny, but everything you mention,
> plus the "two motorcycles pass each other at high speed, then one
> turns around and immediately has caught up to the other" were too
> silly to take seriously. The kung-fu flips didn't even make
> sense-- just using whatever technology you have, I guess. Thanks
> for letting me know what to expect before I got there.
[ My pleasure ]
Unless You're A Chick #1
========================
[ From: Regina at Columbia University ]
[ Re: WHERE THE HEART IS ]
> > Though neither syrupy nor stunning in its execution, the film
> > falters as the major melodramatic events-- baby-napping, torna-
> > do, etc.-- eventually fall into a predictable pattern. And
> > by that point, even Portman's luminescent presence isn't enough
> > to keep things compelling. That is, unless you're a chick.
> >
> I think it's worth pointing out that both screenwriters and direc-
> tor are men.
>
[ I think so too ]
Unless You're A Chick #2
========================
[ From: Bart ]
[ Re: WHERE THE HEART IS ]
> > Though neither syrupy nor stunning in its execution, the film
> > falters as the major melodramatic events-- baby-napping, torna-
> > do, etc.-- eventually fall into a predictable pattern. And
> > by that point, even Portman's luminescent presence isn't enough
> > to keep things compelling. That is, unless you're a chick.
> >
> This is quite possible the lowest point you've reached in your
> history as a "film critic." And that is saying a lot. I don't
> know why I even waste my time reading your reviews any more.
>
[ From: Will ]
> You're not the only one. He's been in my killfile for months now.
> Give a monkey an Internet connection... etc.
>
[ From: Matt ]
> Sheesh. Tough crowd. I look forward to Mike's weekly ramblings.
> Not that he needs defending, really.
>
[ Please pass the bananas ]
Fat Rosie O'Donnell
===================
[ From: Dawn ]
[ Re: THE FLINTSTONES IN VIVA ROCK VEGAS ]
> > ...an all-new cast that fleshes out the familiar roles even bet-
> > ter than John Goodman, Rick Moranis, Elizabeth Perkins, and fat
> > Rosie O'Donnell did.
> >
> Let me get this straight. You actually want people to listen to
> your opinion, yet you lead off with descriptions like "fat Rosie
> O'Donnell"? So much for my caring what you think about the movie.
>
[ From: Mike ]
> More appropriate would have been to have written "fat John Good-
> man, short Rick Moranis, right-handed Elizabeth Perkins."
>
[ From: Tuttle ]
> Well Betty always had a good body, at least until Rosie O'Donnell
> played her.
>
[ Wilma was hotter ]
Talking to the Camera
=====================
[ From: Someone at AOL ]
[ Re: LEAVING LAS VEGAS ]
> Since your review was posted some time ago, someone has probably
> already notified you about your confusion with the Shue sequences
> when she is talking to the camera. Remember she is with Ben when
> he expires. Therefore, she must report the death to the author-
> ities.
>
> So, it seems she is talking to the cops-- maybe a detective or cop
> psychoanalyst who could be taping the interviews-- about this man
> who walked into her life, if only for a moment, gave her an uncon-
> ditional love she had never received before, won her over on a
> genuinely romantic level, and then died, leaving her with the re-
> sponsibility-- something that goes hand-in-hand with living in re-
> ality, which Ben couldn't deal with--of cleaning up his selfish
> final act.
>
> By the way, the rest of the content in your review was good, if
> rather general. If I enlightened you the slightest bit, then I
> thank you for reading my blurb. If you are bothered by my nit-
> picking, my deepest apologies are offered. They are just my in-
> significant, futile observations. But may I suggest you take
> my response to your review as a compliment-- that I would take the
> time to contact you about it means you touched a nerve and that's
> always a good thing.
[ http://www.nonvirtual.com/hell/1995/leaving.html is the review in
question ]
At Least It Was Better Than Mary Reilly
=======================================
[ From: Ryan ]
[ Re: MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN ]
> I disagree with most of what you're saying. You miss out on sev-
> eral points, some subtle and some obvious, that Kenneth Branagh
> makes in this beautiful adaptation. First of all, the "'circling'
> camera technique" that you seem to so confused about. It's an ex-
> ample of the director's genius that such a minor motion can dis-
> play the fevered state Dr. Frankenstein is in. The motion is de-
> signed to show the audience his point of view, as a dizzied and
> confused scientist so devoted to see if he can, that he never
> stopped to ask if he should. This is the underlining point of the
> book, which Branagh focuses on. It is a serious story and Branagh
> tries to pull the audience through Frankenstein's mind as the e-
> vent's unfold. This is why there is no humor. Frankenstein saw
> this as a serious event, his family was dying, and he had just re-
> leased upon the world a blight such as none had ever seen. By
> making those comical references to past versions of the book, it
> would no longer make the movie MARY SHELLY'S FRANKENSTEIN, but ra-
> ther MEL BROOK'S YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. Branagh wasn't making an ac-
> tion film or a comedy. He was doing what he does best, making a
> book on the big screen.
>
> His direction fills the mind with amazing imagery, leading to the
> grotesque moments that help develop the ideas of the shear hide-
> ousness of the creature. Branagh illustrates the book, instead of
> making a new plot loosely based on the book. The immense imagery
> that you mention is very lingering in the mind-- such as Eliza-
> beth's death or the monster's scared body-- but what you fail to
> appreciate are those small moments where the more-beautiful-less-
> grotesque imagery from the book is brilliantly transcribed to
> film. Branagh portrayed the madness and remorse of Frankenstein
> very well. De Niro certainly showed the depths of rage and the
> immense compassion that the monster can have. The others, Cleese,
> Holm, Carter, etc., have small roles, but in the book it they're
> small roles as well. In conclusion, Branagh is able to keep to
> the main focus of the book, and is able to brilliant illustrate
> the imagery that Shelly unleashes in the mind, making the movie
> one, if not the, best adaptation of "A Modern Prometheus." Better
> known as "Frankenstein."
[ http://www.moviehell.com/1994/mary.frankenstein.html is the other
review in question.
Good night everybody! ]
Copyright 2000 by Michael J. Legeros
Movie Hell is a trademark of Michael J. Legeros